Inauguration Controversies

[ylexot]

Not only is the phrase "under God" in the president's oath under attack from an atheist who has filed suit to stop any prayers from being said during the ceremony, now crosses have been banned from the inaugural parade.

I have no problem with Bush saying "under God" in the oath of office. I'd also have no problem with an atheist President not saying "under God". What's the problem with someone making an oath based on what they believe?

I also understand the ban on crosses...it's a security issue and Rev. Mahoney needs to get over it.

Another one...
D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

This looks like a boneheaded move by the Bush admin to me.

 

[KevRock666]

Not only is the phrase "under God" in the president's oath under attack from an atheist who has filed suit to stop any prayers from being said during the ceremony, now crosses have been banned from the inaugural parade.

I have no problem with Bush saying "under God" in the oath of office. I'd also have no problem with an atheist President not saying "under God". What's the problem with someone making an oath based on what they believe?

I also understand the ban on crosses...it's a security issue and Rev. Mahoney needs to get over it.

Another one...
D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

This looks like a boneheaded move by the Bush admin to me.

Just like the Democratic and Republican Conventions, the 11.9 Million is for Extra Security, which is directly related to homeland security, which in turn means, that is directly where the money should come from..

As for the "God" Controversy, Who cares what an athiest thinks, this country was founded under Christian Beliefs, and just because we have freedom of Religion, does not mean we practice more than one...

 

[Lenny]

This looks like a boneheaded move by the Bush admin to me.

Yeah, but they have no option. The Capitol is in the Capital. I'm sure that if he could move it to, say, Omaha, he would. But then Anthony Williams would be the mayor of a swamp!

 

[ylexot]

Yeah, but they have no option. The Capitol is in the Capital. I'm sure that if he could move it to, say, Omaha, he would. But then Anthony Williams would be the mayor of a swamp!

Sure they have another option...pay for it with federal money just like all the other inaugurations. And before you jump on me, I know that the DC budget comes from the Fed. However, the problem is that DC didn't budget for the inauguration. Therefore, the money would have to come from other budgeted items or the DC budget would have to be plussed up.

 

[ylexot]

As for the "God" Controversy, Who cares what an athiest thinks, this country was founded under Christian Beliefs, and just because we have freedom of Religion, does not mean we practice more than one...

Actually, that's exacly what it means. It's true that the vast majority of people in the US were Christians when the country was founded, but even some of the founders were not Christians. Strange comments coming from someone with "666" in their name...are you actually serious, or are you just a troll?

 

[vraiblonde]

The city of DC will be reaping the financial benefits of the inauguration - increased tax revenue from tourists and partiers, increased business revenue from hotels, restaurants, caterers, security firms, etc. So they'll get their money back.

What? DC town council didn't realize there was going to be an inauguration this year?

 

[vraiblonde]

are you actually serious, or are you just a troll?

Ylexot, meet KevRock.

 

[Lenny]

What? DC town council didn't realize there was going to be an inauguration this year?

They may have had it budgeted. With the "Mayor-for-life" back on the town council, it may have already gone up his nose!

 

[KevRock666]

Actually, that's exacly what it means. It's true that the vast majority of people in the US were Christians when the country was founded, but even some of the founders were not Christians. Strange comments coming from someone with "666" in their name...are you actually serious, or are you just a troll?

Actually, you are incorrect sir. It means the citizens have the right to practice any religion they may want, it does not mean that the country has to adhere to, or in any way Compromise the beliefs in which the country was founded. One Nation, Under God

 

[KevRock666]

Ylexot, meet KevRock.

Momma, even you cannot call me a troll.. I got way to much skill

Hi

 

[Ken King]

What "under God" in the oath of office? Has the last paragraph of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution been changed? I thought the objection was to any member of the clergy being present when the oath is administered.

This is the required text of the oath as found in the Constitution, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[ylexot]

Actually, you are incorrect sir. It means the citizens have the right to practice any religion they may want, it does not mean that the country has to adhere to, or in any way Compromise the beliefs in which the country was founded. One Nation, Under God

That's not what you said before. Let me refresh your memory...

just because we have freedom of Religion, does not mean we practice more than one...

Who do you mean by "we"? I took it to be the same "we" in "We the people...". The people of this country ("we") never have and probably never will all practice the same religion (it could happen, but it would have to be voluntary). Therefore, "we" practice more than one religion.

 

[ylexot]

What "under God" in the oath of office? Has the last paragraph of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution been changed? I thought the objection was to any member of the clergy being present when the oath is administered.

This is the required text of the oath as found in the Constitution, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Good point. For some reason, I thought the oath had a required part (what you posted) and a part that could be tailored. It looks like that is not so. Maybe he's against the prayers that typically go on at the inauguration?

 

[justin anemone]

Aside from the 2nd Amendment, the "Separation of Church and State" is one of the most widely misunderstood tenets of our political system.

Simply put, it demanded that Government not force a particular religious belief on it's constituents. At no point did it demand that government be Atheistic.

The president saying "Under God" doesn't even remotely resemble the president insisting that everyone in the US become a Methodist.

 

[Ken King]

Aside from the 2nd Amendment, the "Separation of Church and State" is one of the most widely misunderstood tenets of our political system.

Simply put, it demanded that Government not force a particular religious belief on it's constituents. At no point did it demand that government be Atheistic.

The president saying "Under God" doesn't even remotely resemble the president insisting that everyone in the US become a Methodist.

Actually the demand within the First Amendment is directed expressly at the Congress forbidding the establishment of a national religion. The people are to be left to themselves whether they chose to practice any religion or not and they are not to be interfered with in this undertaking.

It certainly has been bastardized over time to limit expression versus the intent of allowing for it.